This is dumb. Even if I admit a lot of these ads annoy me. Back in the day Google would just lower the ranking of sites with banner ads. That sort of makes sen

This is dumb. Even if I admit a lot of these ads annoy me. Back in the day Google would just lower the ranking of sites with banner ads. That sort of makes sense. They're a worse result, so show them lower. Fine. We should still decide this with traffic, but hey we can debate that. To give Google/Chrome broad authorization to block people from seeing content that Google doesn't like scares the hell out of me, even if it's under a thoughtful banner. Random made up example- what if next time Google picks a consumer advocacy group that says PayPal is a bad service, and blocks ads on sites that use PayPal? (Google offers Wallet) I would grant them blocking ads that activate Android vibration- I consider that borderline malware. I grant pop-up ads, opening a new tab I didn't ask for is also arguably malware. I do not grant them blocking a wide variety of types of content just because marketers are abusing it. That's bad precedent. Rank them down, warn the user, heck put a "click to play Flash" lock on it. But don't take control away. Google also hints at services that would let a website lock down when it detects ad blocking and force people to pay or otherwise engage to get access to the site. I think that's already one trojan horse. Google can stop you from trying to generate revenue off users, oh by the way we sell a new system where you can pay to get that back. I don't like anything about this, even though I agree that screw those ads.